Monthly Archives: July 2017

Microsoft has posted a list of features that are “removed or deprecated” in the next major update to Windows 10, called the Fall Creators Update.

The two that caught my eye are Paint, a simple graphics editor whose ancestry goes right back to Windows 1.0 in 1985, and System Image Backup, a means of backing up Windows that preserves applications, settings and documents.

I use Paint constantly. It is ideal for cropping screenshots and photos, where you want a quick result with no need for elaborate image processing. It starts in a blink, lets you resize images while preserving aspect ratio, and supports .BMP, .GIF, .JPG, .PNG and .TIF – all the most important formats.

I used Paint to crop the following screen, of the backup feature to be removed.

System Image Backup is the most complete backup Windows offers. It copies your system drive so that you can restore it to another hard drive, complete with applications and data. By contrast, the “modern” Windows 10 backup only backs up files and you will need to reinstall and reconfigure the operating system along with any applications if your hard drive fails and you want to get back where you were before. “We recommend that users use full-disk backup solutions from other vendors,” says Microsoft unhelpfully.

If System Image Backup does stop working, take a look at Disk2vhd which is not entirely dissimilar, but copies the drive to a virtual hard drive; or the third party DriveSnapshot which can backup and restore entire drives. Or of course one of many other backup systems.

The bigger picture here is that when Microsoft pitched the advantages of “Windows of a service”, it neglected to mention that features might be taken away as well as added.

A common problem (I am not sure how common, but there are hundreds of reports) with the Edge browser in Windows 10 is that it gets into the habit of opening and then immediately closing, or closing when you try to browse the web.

I was trying to fix a PC with these symptoms. In the event log, an error was logged “Faulting module name: EMODEL.dll.” Among much useless advice out there, there is one that has some chance. You can reinstall Edge by following a couple of steps, as described in various places. Something like this (though be warned you will lose ALL your Edge settings, favourites etc):

Delete C:\Users\%username%\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe (a few files may get left behind)

However this did not fix the problem – annoying after losing the settings. I was about to give up when I found this thread. The culprit, for some at lease, is IBM Trusteer Rapport and its Early Browser Protection feature. I disabled this, rebooted, and Edge now works.

Failing that, you can Stop or uninstall Rapport and that should also fix the problem.

Microsoft’s Azure Stack is a pre-configured, cut-down version of Microsoft’s mighty cloud platform, condensed into an appliance-like box that you can install on your own premises.

Azure Stack is not just a a new way to buy a bunch of Windows servers. Both the technical and the business model are different to anything you have seen before from Microsoft. On the technical side, your interaction with Azure Stack is similar to your interaction with Azure. On the business side, you are buying the hardware, but renting the software. There is no way, according to the latest pricing and licensing guide, to purchase a perpetual license for the software, as you can for Windows Server. Instead, there are two broad options:

Pay-as-you-use

In this model, you buy software services on Azure Stack in exactly the same way as you do on Azure. The fact that you have bought your own hardware gets you a discount (probably). The paper says “Azure Stack service fees are typically lower than Azure prices”.

Service

Base virtual machine

$0.008/vCPU/hour ($6/vCPU/month)

Windows Server virtual machine

$0.046/vCPU/hour ($34/vCPU/month)

Azure Blob Storage

$0.006/GB/month (no transaction fee)

Azure Table and Queue

$0.018/GB/month (no transaction fee)

Azure App Service (Web Apps, Mobile Apps, API Apps, Functions)

$0.056/vCPU/hour ($42/vCPU/month)

This has the merit of being easy to understand. It gets more complex if you take the additional option of using existing licenses with Azure Stack. “You may use licenses from any channel (EA, SPLA, Open, and others),” says the guide, “as long as you comply with all software licensing and product terms.” That qualification is key; those documents are not simple. Let’s briefly consider Windows Server 2016 Standard, for example. Licensing is per core. To install Windows Server 2016 Standard on a VM, you have to license all the cores in the physical server, even if your VM only has one virtual CPU. The servers in Azure Stack, I presume, have lots of cores. Even when you have done this, you are only allowed to install it on up to two VMs. If you need it on a third VM, you have to license all the cores again. Here are the relevant words:

Standard Edition provides rights for up to 2 Operating System Environments or Hyper-V containers when all physical cores in the server are licensed. For each additional 1 or 2 VMs, all the physical cores in the server must be licensed again.

Oh yes, and once you have done that, you need to purchase CALs as well, for every user or device accessing a server. Note too that on Azure Stack you always have to pay the “base virtual machine” cost in addition to any licenses you supply.

This is why the only sane way to license Windows Server 2016 in a virtualized environment is to use the expensive Datacenter edition. Microsoft’s pay-as-you-use pricing will be better for most users.

Capacity model

This is your other option. It is a fixed annual subscription with two variants:

App Service, base virtual machines and Azure Storage

$400 per core per year

Base virtual machines and Azure Storage only

$144 per core per year

The Capacity Model is only available via an Enterprise Agreement (500 or more users or devices required); and you still have to bring your own licenses for Windows Server, SQL Server and any other licensed software required. Microsoft says it expects the capacity model to be more expensive for most users.

SQL Server

There are two ways to use SQL Server on Azure. You can use a SQL database as a service, or you can deploy your own SQL Server in a VM.

The same is true on Azure Stack; but I am not clear about how the licensing options if you offer SQL databases as a service. In the absence of any other guidance, it looks as if you will have to bring your own SQL Server license, which will make this expensive. However it would not surprise me if this ends up as an option in the pay-as-you-use model.

Using free software

It is worth noting that costs for both Azure and Azure Stack come way down if you use free software, such as Linux rather than Windows Server, and MySQL rather than SQL Server. Since Microsoft is making strenuous efforts to make its .NET application development framework cross-platform, that option is worth watching.

Support

You will have to get support for Azure Stack, since it is not meant to be user-serviceable. And you will need two support contracts, one with Microsoft, and one with your hardware provider. The hardware support is whatever you can negotiate with the hardware vendor. Microsoft support will be part of your Premier, Azure or Partner support in most cases.

Implications of Azure Stack

When Microsoft embarked on its Azure project, it made the decision not to use System Center, its suite of tools for managing servers and “private cloud”, but to create a new way to manage servers that is better automated, more scalable, and easier for end-users. Why would you use System Center if you can use Azure Stack? Well, one obvious reason is that with Azure Stack you are ceding a lot of control to Microsoft (and to your hardware supplier), as well as getting pushed down a subscription path for your software licensing. If you can handle that though, it does seem to me that running Azure Stack is going to be a lot easier and more productive than building your own private cloud, for most organizations.

This presumes of course that it works. The big risk with Azure Stack is that it breaks; and your IT administrators will not know how to fix it, because that responsibility has been outsourced to your hardware vendor and to Microsoft. It is possible, therefore, than an Azure Stack problem will be harder to solve than other typical Windows platform failures. A lot will depend on the quality control achieved both by Microsoft, for the software, and its hardware partners.

Bottom line: this is the iPad of servers. You buy it but don’t really control it, and it is a delight to use provided it works.

Every major IT security incident generates a ton of me-too articles most of which lack meaningful content. Journalists receive a torrent of emails from companies or consultants hoping to be quoted, with insightful remarks like “companies should be more prepared” or “you should always keep your systems and security software patched and up to date.”

An interesting feature of NotPetya (which is also Not Ransomware, but rather a malware attack designed to destroy data and disrupt business) is that keeping your systems and security software patched and up to date in some cases did not help you. Note this comment from a user:

Updated Win10 CU with all new cumulative updates and Win10 Insider Fast latest were attacked and affected. Probably used “admin” shares but anyway – Defender from Enterprise just ignored virus shared through network.

Two posts about NotPetya which are worth reading are the technical analyses from Microsoft here and here. Reading these it is hard not to conclude that the attack was an example of state-sponsored cyberwarfare primarily targeting Ukraine. The main factors behind this conclusion are the lack of financial incentive (no serious effort to collect payment which in any case could not restore files). Note the following from Microsoft’s analysis:

The VictimID shown to the user is randomly generated using CryptGenRandom() and does not correspond to the MFT encryption, so the ID shown is of no value and is also independent from the per-drive file encryption ID written on README.TXT.

My observations are as follows.

1. You cannot rely on security software, nor on OS patching (though this is still critically important). Another example of this came in the course of reviewing the new SENSE consumer security appliance from F-Secure. As part of the test, I plucked out a recent email which asked me to download a virus (thinly disguised as an invoice) and tried to download it. I succeeded. It sailed past both Windows Defender and F-Secure. When I tested the viral file with VirusTotal only 4 of 58 anti-virus applications detected it.

The problem is that competent new malware has a window of opportunity of at least several hours when it is likely not to be picked up. If during this time it can infect a significant number of systems and then spread by other means (as happened with both WannaCry and NotPetya) the result can be severe.

2. Check your backups. This is the most effective protection against malware. Further, backup is complicated. What happens if corrupted or encrypted files are backed up several times before the problem is spotted? This means you need a backup that can go back in time to several different dates. If your backup is always online, what happens if a network intruder is able to manage and delete your backups? This means you should have offline backups, or at least avoid having a single set of credentials which, if stolen, give an attacker full access to all your backups. What happens if you think you are backed up, but in fact critical files are not being backed up? This is common and means you must do a test restore from time to time, pretending that all your production systems have disappeared.

3. If you are running Windows, run Windows 10. I am sorry to have to say this, in that I recognize that in some respects Windows 7 has a more coherent design and user interface. But you cannot afford to miss out on the security work Microsoft has done in Windows 10, as the second Microsoft article referenced above spells out.

4. Is it the fault of Microsoft Windows? An interesting discussion point which deserves more attention. The simplistic argument against Windows is that most malware attacks exploit bugs in Windows, therefore it is partly Microsoft’s fault for making the bugs, and partly your fault for running Windows. The more plausible argument is that Windows monoculture in business gives criminals an easy target, with a huge array of tools and expertise on how to hack it easily available.

The issue is in reality a complex one and we should credit Microsoft at least with huge efforts to make Windows more secure. Users, it must be noted, are in many cases resistant to these efforts, perceiving them as an unnecessary nuisance (for example User Access Control in Vista); and historically third-party software vendors have also often got in the way, such as being slow or reluctant to apply digital signatures to software drivers and applications.

Windows 8 was in part an effort to secure Windows by introducing a new and secure model for applications. There are many reasons why this was unsuccessful, but too little recognition of the security aspect of these efforts.

The answer then is also nuanced. If you run Windows you can so with reasonable security, especially if you are serious about it and use features such as Device Guard, which whitelists trusted applications. If you switch your business to Mac or Linux, you might well escape the next big attack, not so much because the OS is inherently more secure, but because you become part of a smaller and less attractive target.

For a better answer, see the next observation.

5. Most users should run a locked-down operating system. This seems rather obvious. Users who are not developers, who use the same half a dozen applications day to day, are better and more safely served by running a computer in which applications are properly isolated from the operating system and on which arbitrary executables from unknown sources are not allowed to execute. Examples are iOS, Android, Chrome OS and Windows 10 S. Windows 10 Creators Update lets you move a little way in this direction by setting it to allow apps from the Store only:

There is a significant downside to running a locked-down operating system, especially as a consumer, in that you cede control of what you can and cannot install to the operating system vendor, as well as paying a fee to that vendor for each paid-for installation. Android and iOS users live with this because it has always been that way, but in Windows the change of culture is difficult. Another issue is limitations in the Windows Store app platform, though this is becoming less of an issue thanks to the Desktop Bridge, which means almost any application can become a Store application. In gaming there is a problem with Steam which is an entire third-party Store system (apparently Steam bypasses the Windows 10 control panel restriction, though it does not run on Windows 10 S). Open source applications are another problem, since few are available in the Windows Store, though this could change.

If we really want Windows to become more secure, we should get behind Windows 10 S and demand better third-party support for the Windows Store.